In the end, how much does strategy really matter? Seriously. Or is it the longer a team has been together?
Furious has won 3 of the last 4 titles. The core of those guys started together in what 97? 98? They knocked on the door for a couple of year (even creeping through the door here in Minnesota).
Before that, Condors had 2 titles. Does anyone know if they went to college together? They won some titles together in college and then came up through the ranks in club. Again, winning some and losing some big games along the way.
Dog had a couple titles in a row. And they played together for a while. And lost for a while.... Etc. Etc.
Obviously, strategery has something to do this. If that had no plan of action, all of these teams would not be as successful. But did they win b/c they had the best strategy? Or did they have the people playing their's team philosophy the best? Or is it that they knew exactly what to expect out of each other under pressure?
Against Furious in the quarters, their offense had some newer guys to the team. But it was still Jeff, Andrew, Kirk, and Al. The others looked to them at difficult times. And they looked at each other. And they knew what to do. On their d team, even though that had MG on there, they struggled with the disc. And maybe this is why that had trouble pulling away from us. Or the fact that on our offense, we had only 3 or 4 guys that were there last year for us.
My point is maybe strategy is overrated. Maybe knowing what your teammate is going to do and wants to do is the most important thing. Maybe this means I agree with Luke. Uh oh...
I have no stats to prove it, but it seems in March Madness there are more upsets then in the 80s and early 90s.
The little guys beating the big guys. It seems like the little guys have 3 or 4 seniors on the team. Been there for all 4 years. Playing together vs. a team of Burger King All Americans who are stopping by a college on their way to the draft or NBDL.
Of course, there was Sockeye last year. With a # of newcomers to their team that were very important. But those newcomers were very good and big play guys. And for the most part, were not around the disc guys (except Burkhardt, who was important for them). So maybe there is a chance for the team of athletes and young-ins to get hot and take over a nationals. But >95% it takes a team of athletes and guys who are confindent with one another to make it through the 4 days in Sarasota. Recruit guys who are committed to your team and want to play with you. Hoepfully, they stay around.
Furious has won 3 of the last 4 titles. The core of those guys started together in what 97? 98? They knocked on the door for a couple of year (even creeping through the door here in Minnesota).
Before that, Condors had 2 titles. Does anyone know if they went to college together? They won some titles together in college and then came up through the ranks in club. Again, winning some and losing some big games along the way.
Dog had a couple titles in a row. And they played together for a while. And lost for a while.... Etc. Etc.
Obviously, strategery has something to do this. If that had no plan of action, all of these teams would not be as successful. But did they win b/c they had the best strategy? Or did they have the people playing their's team philosophy the best? Or is it that they knew exactly what to expect out of each other under pressure?
Against Furious in the quarters, their offense had some newer guys to the team. But it was still Jeff, Andrew, Kirk, and Al. The others looked to them at difficult times. And they looked at each other. And they knew what to do. On their d team, even though that had MG on there, they struggled with the disc. And maybe this is why that had trouble pulling away from us. Or the fact that on our offense, we had only 3 or 4 guys that were there last year for us.
My point is maybe strategy is overrated. Maybe knowing what your teammate is going to do and wants to do is the most important thing. Maybe this means I agree with Luke. Uh oh...
I have no stats to prove it, but it seems in March Madness there are more upsets then in the 80s and early 90s.
The little guys beating the big guys. It seems like the little guys have 3 or 4 seniors on the team. Been there for all 4 years. Playing together vs. a team of Burger King All Americans who are stopping by a college on their way to the draft or NBDL.
Of course, there was Sockeye last year. With a # of newcomers to their team that were very important. But those newcomers were very good and big play guys. And for the most part, were not around the disc guys (except Burkhardt, who was important for them). So maybe there is a chance for the team of athletes and young-ins to get hot and take over a nationals. But >95% it takes a team of athletes and guys who are confindent with one another to make it through the 4 days in Sarasota. Recruit guys who are committed to your team and want to play with you. Hoepfully, they stay around.
posted by sometallskinnykid at 11:24 PM
4 Comments:
you are totally... copying... me...
or you are the second smartest guy on ultimate talk...
timmy for callahan.
geoff- it takes at least 5 wins to win nationals. (1 game on Thu, preq, q, s, f.) 5 wins in a weekend is still a lot, and you would have to get lucky to even get a chance. You can do it with 6 more often. 6=# of march madness games.
Obviously, players improve, newbies always come in, etc., but it was interesting for me to look at the teams that have won it for like 20 years. All played a while with each other and they eventually grew to be champions. Even a bunch of the younger sockeye guys are high school buddies. I guess did they develop a strategy early and morph around that? Or did their strategy have to change along the way b/c Parinella got a forehand? Or Corey moved into town?
Luke - "timmy for callahan." has already failed 3 other times. Why start again.
Timmy, I think you need to realize that you are talking about only the VERY best teams here. Condors, DoG, Furious, and all the teams they beat at nationals, all have rosters filled with players who already have the basic strategy base to build on. Once you're at that stage, things like confidence and familiarity with your teammates, and the ability to handle many different situations on the fly, are probably more important than what basic formation you're running.
If you step down a level or three, though, having a solid strategy that everyone on the team understands can be the difference between finishing finishing fourth at regionals, and running the table. (Yes, that WAS an incredibly self-aggrandizing statement.)
I think I made this same point a few months ago on AJ's site. The ulty blogosphere is SO spring '05.
Tarr- even though I don't know what self-aggrandizing means, I disagree with you.
I think it is the complete opposite of what you say, it is the team with the most experience together that almost always wins the game. Maybe it is too close. The team with the most experience together might also have the best strategy.
When the basic strategy breaks down or gets stopped, it is the team who knows each other best that wins. Especially in the lower levels, when you get more hell points. More fast breaks. More ds. You have to freelance more and you have to be able to trust your teammates more.
Post a Comment
<< Home